Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Microsoft Active Directory MCP Server

Microsoft Active Directory MCP Server

by nks1097
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

ad_compare_gpos

Compare two Group Policy Objects' configurations and status to identify differences and support troubleshooting or audit review.

Instructions

[Group Policy Objects] [READ] Comparar configuracoes e status de duas GPOs.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "gpo_a": "<gpo_a>",
      "gpo_b": "<gpo_b>"
    },
    "name": "ad_compare_gpos"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
gpo_aYes
gpo_bYes
correlation_idNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

C2.7/5.0
Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries full behavioral burden. The '[READ]' tag usefully signals this is non-mutating, but nothing is said about required permissions, what dimensions are compared, or how results are framed.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single short sentence front-loaded with bracketed category and access tags. Nothing is wasted, though the tags consume space that could have carried parameter or usage detail.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists so return values needn't be described, but with 0% parameter coverage and no usage or behavioral detail, the definition is under-specified for a three-parameter comparison tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0% and none of the three parameters are explained. The phrase 'duas GPOs' loosely maps to gpo_a/gpo_b, but it never states whether identifiers are names, GUIDs, or DNs, and correlation_id is entirely undocumented.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb ('Comparar') and resource ('duas GPOs'), plus the scope of comparison (configurations and status). It does not distinguish itself from related siblings like ad_get_gpo_report, ad_generate_gpo_report, or ad_compare_directory_snapshots, so it falls short of a 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No indication of when to reach for this versus ad_get_gpo_report or ad_compare_directory_snapshots, nor any prerequisites. The comparison intent is implied by the verb alone, leaving the agent to infer routing.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools